A brief comment on the actions of Extinction Rebellion

The environmental activist group Extinction Rebellion has been engaged in a series of disruptive protests across London over the past five-days, responding to what they regard as an unprecedented global climate emergency. The movement is calling for radical and significant policy change to help prevent climate catastrophe. Illegal protests have taken place at Marble Arch, Oxford Circus, Parliament Square, Waterloo Bridge, and more recently Heathrow Airport. Tactics used by protesters include blocking roads, lying on the ground when police approach and gluing themselves to trains. A small group of Extinction Rebellion protesters smeared ‘anti-Shell’ messages on the side of the Shell headquarters in London, while a pink boat boldly printed with “TELL THE TRUTH” has been used to block traffic at Oxford Circus.

Responses by the general public and mainstream media have been mixed, as is commonly the case. On the less favourable side, arguments pertain to the significant disruption caused to city-workers going about their everyday lives (undisputedly a consequence), the significant increase in police resources required to deal with disruption (once again, inevitable) and the counter-productive tactics of holding-up Co2-producing traffic.

Of course, Sajid Javid, the home secretary, is correct. The protesters should be met with the “full force of the law”. A selective leniency should not be afforded, and it’s apparent that the movement itself does not expect to be treated leniently. In fact, the group has said that they are willing to be arrested; a worthwhile risk, all things considered? Certainly, breaking the law gives weight to the action. History is littered with similar socio-political protests that have led to political and social developments that are now widely considered normal, right and fair. The actions of the suffragettes is one notable example. Certainly, their actions can arguably be characterised as far more militant, damaging and condemnable, while the consequences of neglecting to listen to the arguments of the protesters, and enact radical policy change, are far graver in this instance.

Equally, those on the opposing side, arguing against the disruptive actions of Extinction Rebellion, would additionally advocate for their arrest. No-one on either side desires to let these folks off scot-free.

Certainly, Sajid Javid should receive first prize for ‘stating the bloody obvious’. Another familiar example of empty, meaningless rhetoric used to present a facade of controversy, that resonates boldly with those advocating against the actions of Extinction Rebellion, but largely anodyne and of little interest to everyone else. Perhaps, a useful position to present for someone who is hoping to make a successful leadership bid in the foreseeable future, right?

Of course, any thinking person should ask if the actions are not counter-productive? Causing significant traffic congestion seems an effective way of increasing the amount of Co2 emitted into the atmosphere, surely undermining the efforts to limit climate degradation? Also, how did the protesters make their way to central London from divergent parts of the country? A tree-hugging pedestrian train? Probably not. Also, is causing disruption to the lives of city-workers not a sure-fire way of causing the upper-most amount of annoyance? The need for more police officers to be relocated to central London will equally have a negative impact on the environment.

But one must remind himself that counter-productive, short-term detriments are superseded by the significant and long-term benefits that may be achieved through such action. Some relatively mild disruption today, a slight spike in carbon emissions in central London, and numerous police officers having to forgo their summer break, but with a possibility of changing climate policy and preventing the eventual devastation of the planet? I’ll take it. If the actions aren’t fruitful, what difference has it made?  

You are patently stupid if you think that the actions of the majority of these people are not derived from a place of love, care and selfless compassion for all life, no matter how ‘annoying’ their actions might be. It would be unwise to cast their arguments aside as hippie, tree-hugging nonsense.

We need to have some perspective. The scientific evidence is overwhelming, life on earth is facing an existential threat. We need radical climate policy change, and the clock is moving against us.